but why not spend the few bits to make it clear what its intended for - the pushback on that simple request puzzles me I do not understand the reluctance
if it is so far outside of the area covered by the document why not simply remove it? Scott > On Jun 14, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Scott - > > Allow me to inject myself here. As editor of the companion IS-IS document > (draft-ietf-isis-te-app) I have received similar comments - for example from > Ben (copied on this thread). > > I continue to be at a loss as to why you believe we have to say something > about User Defined Applications beyond what we have already said: > > "User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to > Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or > any other standards body." > > If you do a search through both documents using "standard app" and "user > defined app" I think you will find equivalent statements about both. Which > means you are asking for some text regarding UDAs that doesn’t exist for SAs. > Why? > > The question of "UDA scope" - raised by both you and Ben - I think is an > example of something that isn’t needed. > > Link attributes have been advertised for years - and the ability to define > the appropriate scope (area or domain) has been supported by implementations > for many years. While we are changing the format of how link attributes are > advertised, we aren't altering the scopes supported. > > Standard applications can be (and have been) supported area wide and/or > domain wide - and no restriction/specification of what scopes SHOULD/MUST be > supported is present in either document other than to specify the type of > LSAs in which the advertisements may appear. And since the new TLV introduced > to carry application specific advertisements carries both SA and UDA bit > masks in the same TLV, clearly the available scopes are the same for both > types of applications. > > For me, the fact that UDA is outside the scope of standardization means the > less said about how UDAs might be used the better. > > Do we have common ground here? > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 12:23 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; last- >> [email protected] >> Subject: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14 >> >> Reviewer: Scott Bradner >> Review result: Ready >> >> I have reviewed the latest version of this document and my earlier issues >> have >> been resolved at least well enough for teh document to be considered ready >> for >> publication. >> >> that said I still do not see where "User Defined Application Identifier" is >> actually cleanly defined - one can read carefully and determine but it would >> be >> easier on the reader to just say that it is a field that can be used to >> indicate the use of one or more non-standard applications within some scope >> (network, subnet, link, organization, ... not sure what scopes are meaningful >> here but it does not seem that a User Defined Application Identifier would >> be a >> global (between network operators) value >> >> Scott >> > > -- > last-call mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
